Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'

[Barbirollians]

"Our removal of Waterhouse’s naked nymphs painting was art in action"

Just in case people don't click on dover's link: it's a story by artist Sonia Boyce explaining her own part in suggesting the removal of the work to involve more people in the 'curatorial process' than is usual in the displaying and removal of works of art.

"I can’t claim credit for all that has unfolded since then, nor do I want to distance myself from my role in it. After collecting the footage from the performance and appraising the varied responses, I will have to focus on creating an artwork."

IOW It seems to be advance promotion for Boyce's forthcoming exhibition at the gallery.

Yes self-promotion was at the heart of this I am afraid.

Old as the hills stuff - Joe Orton whipped up interest in his plays by inventing a Mary Whitehouse figure called Edna Welthorpe who wrote disgusted letters to the newspapers.

[Serial_Apologist]

"Our removal of Waterhouse’s naked nymphs painting was art in action"

As one word, that might have made some sense.

[MrGongGong]

"Our removal of Waterhouse’s naked nymphs painting was art in action"

Just in case people don't click on dover's link: it's a story by artist Sonia Boyce explaining her own part in suggesting the removal of the work to involve more people in the 'curatorial process' than is usual in the displaying and removal of works of art.

"I can’t claim credit for all that has unfolded since then, nor do I want to distance myself from my role in it. After collecting the footage from the performance and appraising the varied responses, I will have to focus on creating an artwork."

IOW It seems to be advance promotion for Boyce's forthcoming exhibition at the gallery.

It was ALWAYS part of Sonia Boyce's exhibition
some folks seemed to completely ignore that as a story about "censorship" is much more "sexy"
And (of course, whether her work will be any good or not is another matter entirely) it wasn't really "promotion" more part of the artistic process.
I once wrote a piece for orchestra where as part of the process I invited all the residents of a particular place to make a list of the birds they had heard in their gardens, then used transcriptions of these in part of the music. It wasn't "publicity" but involving people in the process.
Seems fairly standard and hardly controversial to me.

[french frank]

It was ALWAYS part of Sonia Boyce's exhibition

What was? I understood she was saying it would be an artwork for her exhibition (in March), which she was now working on?

Or did you mean, "It was always intended to be part of her exhibition?"

Well, you might have explained that to us before we wasted so much time discussing it

[MrGongGong]

What was? I understood she was saying it would be an artwork for her exhibition (in March), which she was now working on?

Or did you mean, "It was always intended to be part of her exhibition?"

Well, you might have explained that to us before we wasted so much time discussing it

The removal of the painting was (as I understood it) part of the process of making of the work for her exhibition.

[french frank]

The removal of the painting was (as I understood it) part of the process of making of the work for her exhibition.

Oh, so you cottoned on when you read the Guardian article yesterday?

[MrGongGong]

Seems to be working very well indeed

Stimulating discussion amongst all sorts of folk who would never go to a gallery
along with those who are making assumptions about "censorship" etc

It is aslo in preparation for another exhibition by Sonia Boyce

https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/sonia-boyce-ra

It does seem to have rattled a few cages, which is to be encouraged. Art isn't just something "pretty" to take up wall space.

Oh, so you cottoned on when you read the Guardian article yesterday?

Nope, I said this

"It is aslo in preparation for another exhibition by Sonia Boyce" with a link to her work

at the start

[jean]

The removal of the painting was (as I understood it) part of the process of making of the work for her exhibition.

Didn't we always know that?

It's not as if intervention in other people's artworks is entirely unknown.

[MrGongGong]

Didn't we always know that?

It's not as if intervention in other people's artworks is entirely unknown.

Some people appeared to think it was something else entirely


"A canvas is never empty" Robert Rauschenberg

[Lat-Literal]

Some people appeared to think it was something else entirely


"A canvas is never empty" Robert Rauschenberg

I still think it is something else entirely. Involving members of the public in the "curatorial process" is not close to any earlier concepts of art. It is more easily defined as "something other than art - ie curating". And while Boyce left it to the gallery's official curator of modern art to discuss the questions raised on "The World at One", the idea that the removal was of itself part of the artwork was not made clear. There was just a lot of wriggling. Their story changed actually. Originally on the gallery's website: the painting was removed "to prompt conversation about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection.......This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!"" If that is part of art, all of Twitter is art as is all of the news media which Boyce criticises for conversing in its own way rather than hers.

Then when there was criticism, Claire Gannaway, (the modern art curator?), "stressed that this was not about censorship, but about "outdated and damaging stories this whole part of the gallery is still telling through the contextualising and interpretation of collection displays". Writing on the gallery's website, Claire added: "The area of the gallery which included Hylas and the Nymphs hasn’t changed for a VERY long time and still tells a very particular story about the bodies on display. We think that we can do better than this and the taking down of the painting is a playful way to open up a discussion about this whole gallery, the collection and the way that artworks speak to us through the way they are interpreted and put into context. We’d like this gallery to tell a different story in 2018, rather than being about the ‘Pursuit of Beauty’ with a binary tale about how women are either femmes fatale or passive bodies for male consumption. Shouldn’t we be challenging this instead of perpetuating views which result in things like the President’s Club being able to exist? The gallery doesn’t exist in a bubble and these things are connected, surely?" Given the currency of the President's Club story, that hardly suggested the long term planning of a significant part of an art project. What it did suggest was that the women had decided themselves on the curating aspects and wanted to pretend that it was being endorsed by a questioning public.

I also think their contemporary reading of the piece is wrong. It is on one level about the sense of loss in a father when his son is loved by women and on another level about the loss in a same sex partner when the other is attractive to women. So any element of the femme fatale is hardly stereotypical in either instance - and it says nothing about the President's Club. From the Latin Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus : Heracles "never found Hylas because he had fallen in love with the nymphs......and he remained "to share their power and their love.""

[MrGongGong]

I still think it is something else entirely. Involving members of the public in the "curatorial process" is not close to any earlier concepts of art. It is more easily defined as "something other than art - ie curating". And while Boyce left it to the gallery's official curator of modern art to discuss the questions raised on "The World at One", the idea that the removal was of itself part of the artwork was not made clear. .

Seemed pretty clear to me
(this is from the original Guardian article)

"The removal itself is an artistic act and will feature in a solo show by the artist Sonia Boyce which opens in March. People can tweet their opinion using #MAGSoniaBoyce."

Also involving the public in the "curatorial process" doesn't seem very unusual to me. Many artists (and musicians) have grappled with the issues of who is entitled to put work in galleries and what that says about other things in society.
I'm not suggesting that the gallery managed this very well at all but the reaction is a bit OTT.

[doversoul1]

... Also involving the public in the "curatorial process" doesn't seem very unusual to me.

It doesn't indeed. We come across it every morning on Radio 3. Don’t we all love it!?

[MrGongGong]

It doesn't indeed. We come across it every morning on Radio 3. Don’t we all love it!?

I'll have to check with my Facebook friends to answer that

[Lat-Literal]

Seemed pretty clear to me
(this is from the original Guardian article)

"The removal itself is an artistic act and will feature in a solo show by the artist Sonia Boyce which opens in March. People can tweet their opinion using #MAGSoniaBoyce."

Also involving the public in the "curatorial process" doesn't seem very unusual to me. Many artists (and musicians) have grappled with the issues of who is entitled to put work in galleries and what that says about other things in society.
I'm not suggesting that the gallery managed this very well at all but the reaction is a bit OTT.

Well, you would have to give me the timing of that quote. I am talking about the changes in emphasis between the end of January and 2nd February before Ms Boyce wrote in The Guardian on the 6th. If you accept that the gallery didn't manage it well, I will accept that the general public didn't cope with it well because of the news media. But as Doversoul implies in her comment, that is what happens when you hand over any thinking process to the crowd. I would have thought that most of what is generally regarded as art is an invitation for personal interpretation. You see a painting in one way. She sees it in another, etc. Here, though, most of the writing from the gallery before Boyce's late appearance underpinned that the artist and curators had an entire manifesto. That is deeply ironic given that the supposed welcoming of interpretation was made explicit rather than implied. Perhaps it was muddle. If not, it was trickery. They were the nymphs, the journos were the water and the public was Hylus. unless the latter is interpreted not in Boyce's way but in line with the mythology.

[MrGongGong]

Well, you would have to give me the timing of that quote. I am talking about the changes in emphasis between the end of January and 2nd February before Ms Boyce wrote in The Guardian on the 6th. If you accept that the gallery didn't manage it well, I will accept that the general public didn't cope with it well because of the news media. But as Doversoul implies in her comment, that is what happens when you hand over any thinking process to the crowd. I would have thought that most of what is generally regarded as art is an invitation for personal interpretation. You see a painting in one way. She sees it in another, etc. Here, though, most of the writing from the gallery before Boyce's late appearance underpinned that the artist and curators had an entire manifesto. That is deeply ironic given that the supposed welcoming of opinions was made explicit rather than implied. Perhaps it was muddle. If it was not, it was trickery. They were the nymphs, the journos were the water and the public was Hylus. unless the latter is interpreted not in Boyce's way but in line with the actual mythology.

This was the original article

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/31/manchester-art-gallery-removes-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-painting-prompt-conversation

Jan 31st